The State of Maharashtra vs Nitesh Prakashlal Ahuja Advocate - Dusane N. G. — 36/2024
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 188,272,273,328. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 11th March 2026.
Sessions Case
CNR: MHDH010013482024
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
511/2024
Filing Date
27-03-2024
Registration No
36/2024
Registration Date
27-03-2024
Court
District and Session Court ,Dhule
Judge
32-Ad-hoc District Judge -1 and Addl. Sessions Judge, Dhule
Decision Date
11th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
232
Police Station
Dhule City
Year
2023
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
The State of Maharashtra
Adv. Sanap A. S.
Respondent(s)
Nitesh Prakashlal Ahuja Advocate - Dusane N. G.
Hearing History
Judge: 32-Ad-hoc District Judge -1 and Addl. Sessions Judge, Dhule
Disposed
Judgment
Arguments
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 11-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 09-03-2026 | Judgment | |
| 04-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 21-02-2026 | Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. | |
| 20-02-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Additional District Judge at Dhule acquitted Nitesh Prakashlal Ahuja of charges under IPC sections 328, 272, 273, 188 and Food Safety Standards Act 2006 sections 26(2)(iv), 27(3)(d), 27(3)(e), 30(1)(zz)(i), (v) with section 59, finding that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was transporting prohibited pan masala and scented tobacco for sale. The court noted critical procedural gaps in evidence collection, chain-of-custody violations, and absence of credible corroborating witnesses, rendering the prosecution's case legally insufficient for conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary The Additional District Judge at Dhule acquitted Nitesh Prakashlal Ahuja of charges under IPC sections 328, 272, 273, 188 and Food Safety Standards Act 2006 sections 26(2)(iv), 27(3)(d), 27(3)(e), 30(1)(zz)(i), (v) with section 59, finding that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was transporting prohibited pan masala and scented tobacco for sale. The court noted critical procedural gaps in evidence collection, chain-of-custody violations, and absence of credible corroborating witnesses, rendering the prosecution's case legally insufficient for conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts